Transcription
Repetition and tradition exist for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that, okay, this person is coming, which means my G wasn't finished. There's a prism that they're looking through of, "Oh my goodness, I'm scared I'm about to lose my pride of place because there's a new sheriff in town." If there's a new sheriff in town, it means that I may lose.
So the first thing is, let me force the person who is going to hand over to stand in the place of ensuring that we, his loyalists, don't lose anything. You then wonder, therefore, if the loyalty is the kind of loyalty that you and I saw at the Governor's office, which is to defend the people, or if it's a loyalty to my sto.
That's the first thing we've got to distinguish between: loyalty to the people and loyalty to our sto. Because that is perhaps what causes some of the dilemmas we face in leadership, which I tried to allude to when I said that a good leader is the leader who takes into cognizance the people.
When governors are swearing in, they take an oath to defend the Constitution, number one. They take an oath to protect the lives and property of the people. So every time they take that oath, they are reminded when they sit in the Governor's office that their first allegiance ought to be to the people and not to some structure or political enclave, as it is.
So certainly, loyalty has its place, but I guess the conversation we're having today is about the dilemma, as we talked about it, the leadership legacy, and navigating gratitude, loyalty, and autonomy. How do we address this paradox? How can I be loyal but also serve the people?
So how can I make sure that my loyalty straddles the predecessor and the people? I think that I was speaking too much English. Perhaps we can look at a state that we all like to talk about: Lagos State. A state that some of our governors, in fact, like to reference. A state that even some of our governors feel might give them the kind of larger-than-life image.
So let's take a look at how Fashola governed and managed to enthrone his Chief of Staff, Fashola, to be Governor. Fashola, as governor, was able to navigate loyalty but also created innovative things. At some point, that innovation almost caused problems. Indeed, it caused problems.
There were moments, and there were problems, but the good thing was that Fashola was able to leverage the people, the traditional institutions, the political institutions, and all of those people. He was able to leverage them because of his innovative development strategy.
So there were development issues he brought to play that gave him the legitimacy that enabled his predecessor to understand that there would be trouble. But there was also the understanding of the predecessor that if you rock this boat too much, you may not get a chance to continue to create succession.
So he knew when to leave, and he stepped back and finished eight years. Abiodun was not as lucky because Abiodun didn't understand how to harness the other side. But the good thing to see about Lagos is that successive governors had built on each other, and because the Yoruba godfather had also understood the need to allow the voice of the people, Lagos was able to build on succession.
Here in Rivers State, we had a governor, Amaechi, who took back for Mon and it was short. Then A.I. came. Now, A.I. and I were not best friends, but A.I. finished the market which Amaechi started. A.I. built roads which Amaechi started. A.I. continued the free medical care which Amaechi started. A.I. was able to continue on the unity road which Amaechi started.
So there was a succession that led to some development, but A.I. also deviated. He focused on primary health care, he focused on schools, and entered the governance of new. I'm just looking at development. A.I. throws away the schools that I built, which were built with Rivers money, throws away, and doesn't focus on developing primary health care.
He builds beautiful flyovers and roads. Good, very good. But just since the 13,000 teachers that were employed that you needed to build on and to create more, you didn't see a bit of stifling of development.
All right, S. has come in and has continued to build some of the things that we can build. So what is the lesson there? The lesson is that loyalty is good. It is important. It is proper to be loyal, but the loyalty must stop where the needs of the people begin. The people must be the ultimate beneficiaries of governance because that is the goal you swore to as governor.
The truth is that succession planning all over the world is not new. Whether in business or even in social groups, I mean, I'm a Rotarian. Succession planning is not strange, but it is usually collegiate. It is collegiate; it's not about an individual, it's about a group of people.
The Electoral Act already provides for some of this. People have been talking about it. I think the issue then comes to how we can come together. Succession planning is not strange, and I do not agree that it is necessarily only in our part of the world.
Whether you're talking about the U.S. or the U.K., leaders are groomed. You identify a brilliant person, and leaders are groomed. Political parties groom leaders, and you see them growing through the ranks. So you can almost tell that so-and-so is likely to become a prime minister in the U.K. because you see the footprints.
I think that it's about redefining our political processes so that as we see leaders emerge, they are groomed and they are prepared. That's really the mentorship that Prof. was talking about. Leadership is not strange; it is also about us deciding to have a voice.
All of us, whether as elites or as individuals. But one of the major issues that we find in this whole issue of loyalty and so on and so forth is that sometimes people's loyalty, quote-unquote, is not so much to the general good as much as it is to their own.
People are afraid to challenge wrong because if I challenge wrong, then I'll be disenfranchised. You know, as they always say, bad manners to talk white. So because you're at the dining table, you're afraid to bear a view.
I mean, how am I eating with Prof. and I tell him, "Prof., thank you for this gift you gave to me, but you know the other day what you did was wrong?" I mean, he might quickly not invite me for the next one.
So I think that is something everybody needs to take purpose and ask ourselves: Are we really ready to hold people accountable on the matter of what should be done in terms of giving account?
When the governor presents his budget speech, he is supposed to say what he did with the money he received. That is what he is supposed to do. If, as governor, he doesn't say that, then some of us should be asking the questions, whether as electorate or as the media.
How many times do we make a demand to say, "What did you do with so-and-so trillion from last year?" Those questions are not asked. So there's also a responsibility on the people to ask for governance because we must ask for governance. We must demand governance. That's a critical aspect, and I think that's something that we failed to do, even to those who have the elite.
How many times do we say, "Governor, you need to..."? So that is not for matter. But a final thought again on this that I'd like to say, you know, and I'm coming back to Rivers State because we can dance around this as much as we like, but we cannot rule out the issue of political ego.
So when the next person, if a successor comes, let me start with the administration I work in so that nobody thinks I became governor and instituted a truth commission. Was that truth commission instituted from an altruistic point of view, or was it a witch hunt? That's a question perhaps we should ask ourselves.
N comes and institutes a probe. Was that probe done because he truly wanted to serve the people of Rivers State, or was it a witch hunt? So those are the questions that we refuse to answer because the problem we have in Rivers State, as much as we try to dance around it, is that the waters have been muddied, and they've been muddied for so long that the people are suffering because elites are fighting.
Okay, all right.